Advertisement

An Analysis of Directed Motion Expressions with Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars and Frame Semantics

  • Laura Kallmeyer
  • Rainer Osswald
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7456)

Abstract

We present an analysis of directed motion expressions in the framework of Lexicalized Tree Adjoining Grammars (LTAG) enriched with a decompositional frame semantics. This approach to the syntax-semantics interface allows us to combine a detailed decomposition and composition of syntactic building blocks with a parallel decomposition and composition of meaning components. In LTAG, lexical anchors can be distinguished from unanchored elementary trees which allows for the description of the meaning contributions of constructions. Furthermore, due to the metagrammatical factorization of the descriptions of unanchored elementary trees, the meaning contributions of single argument realizations and of their combinations can be described in a principle way.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Abeillé, A.: Une Grammaire Électronique du Français. CNRS Editions, Paris (2002)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barsalou, L.W.: Frames, concepts, and conceptual fields. In: Lehrer, A., Kittay, E.F. (eds.) Frames, Fields, and Contrasts, pp. 21–74. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1992)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Candito, M.H.: Organisation modulaire et paramétrable de grammaires électroniques lexicalisées. Application au français et à l’italien. Ph.D. thesis, Université Paris 7 (1999)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Crabbé, B., Duchier, D.: Metagrammar Redux. In: Christiansen, H., Skadhauge, P.R., Villadsen, J. (eds.) CSLP 2005. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 3438, pp. 32–47. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dowty, D.: Word Meaning and Montague Grammar. D. Reidel, Dordrecht (1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dowty, D.: The dual analysis of adjuncts/complements in Categorial Grammar. In: Lang, E., Maienborn, C., Fabricius-Hansen, C. (eds.) Modifying Adjuncts. Interface Explorations 4, pp. 33–66. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin (2003)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ehrich, V.: Verbbedeutung und Verbgrammatik: Transportverben im Deutschen. In: Lang, E., Zifonun, G. (eds.) Deutsch - Typologisch, pp. 229–260. de Gruyter, Berlin (1996)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eschenbach, C., Tschander, L., Habel, C., Kulik, L.: Lexical specifications of paths. In: Habel, C., Brauer, W., Freksa, C., Wender, K.F. (eds.) Spatial Cognition 2000. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 1849, pp. 127–144. Springer, Heidelberg (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fillmore, C.J.: Frame semantics. In: Linguistics in the Morning Calm, pp. 111–137. Hanshin Publishing Co., Seoul (1982)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fillmore, C.J., Johnson, C.R., Petruck, M.R.L.: Background to FrameNet. International Journal of Lexicography 16(3), 235–250 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Frank, R.: Phrase Structure Composition and Syntactic Dependencies. MIT Press, Cambridge (2002)MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gardent, C., Kallmeyer, L.: Semantic Construction in FTAG. In: Proc. EACL 2003, pp. 123–130 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gehrke, B.: Ps in Motion. On the semantics and syntax of P elements and motion events. LOT, Utrecht (2008)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Goldberg, A.E., Jackendoff, R.: The English resultative as a family of constructions. Language 80, 532–568 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jackendoff, R.: Parts and boundaries. Cognition 41, 9–45 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Joshi, A.K., Schabes, Y.: Tree-Adjoning Grammars. In: Handbook of Formal Languages, pp. 69–123. Springer (1997)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kallmeyer, L., Romero, M.: Scope and situation binding in LTAG using semantic unification. Research on Language and Computation 6(1), 3–52 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kaufmann, I.: Konzeptuelle Grundlagen semantischer Dekompositionsstrukturen. Die Kombinatorik lokaler Verben und prädikativer Argumente. Niemeyer, Tübingen (1995)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mani, I., Pustejovsky, J.: Interpreting Motion. Grounded Representations for Spatial Language. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Talmy, L.: Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Concept Structuring Systems, vol. I. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Talmy, L.: Toward a Cognitive Semantics. Typology and Process in Concept Structuring, vol. II. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Van Valin, R.D., LaPolla, R.J.: Syntax. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1997)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Verkuyl, H., Zwarts, J.: Time and space in conceptual and logical semantics: The notion of path. Linguistics 30, 483–511 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Vijay-Shanker, K., Joshi, A.K.: Feature structures based tree adjoining grammar. In: Proceedings of COLING, Budapest, pp. 714–719 (1988)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zwarts, J.: Prepositional aspect and the algebra of paths. Linguistics and Philosophy 28(6), 739–779 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Laura Kallmeyer
    • 1
  • Rainer Osswald
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Linguistics and Information ScienceUniversity of DüsseldorfGermany

Personalised recommendations